What's in it for me?
Political thoughts of the evening, all basically stolen from Tom Friedman in some way, shape, or form:
1. The best way to engender democratic reform in the Middle East, particularly Iran, is by ... drumroll....reducing the world's dependence on their oil! I know, I'm brilliant. But seriously, as long as prices hover around $40/barrel, there ain't no way in hell the mullahs will give up or change. That's a lot of money coming their way everyday, what evil regime WOULDN'T want to keep that going? Unfortunately, the main causes of the price spikes are Chinese demand (friggin huge, and not going away anytime soon; heck, they're building three new nuclear power plants, and that'll only solve like 2% of the problem) and Nigerian worker strikes. But, BUT... the U.S. alone can make a significant dent simply by INDICATING a move away from oil; this means following through on the whole electric-motor craze (right now it's little more than a fad), promoting conservation, and a whole host of other ideas i don't know anything about. Again, the point is to simply START getting serious about it. I'm willing to bet that this will unnerve the mullahs just as much as the diplomatic sabre rattling that's going on right now. Besides, I strongly believe that whichever country (U.S., India, China, European Union) gets the lead on energy innovation will be best positioned for long-term prosperity (ie, the next superpower).
2. Bin Laden's bounty is now $50 million, recently doubled after being $25M for quite a while. When I first heard this, I thought, if $25M wasn't enough, what makes us think 50 will do the trick? This move (one of Condi Rice's first decisions as Sec of State), combined with Bush's State of the Union speech -- in which he referred to and quoted Zarqawi by name -- is sending the wrong message. Read Friedman's editorial here. Basically, the U.S. is emboldening the reputation of these guys. Think about it. Think about what kind of impact is made when your name is spoken by the President of the United States in the State of the Union. I mean, that's huge. Sure, Bush has said his name before, but not in such formal fashion in front of millions of Americans and broadcast around the world. Bin Laden's bounty increase is just silly. If there was a chance one of his supporters or some greedy local would give him up, $25M would be enough. Time for a new strategy.
3. As much as I admire the chutzpah of the President to take on such a huge, cumbersome issue as Social Security, it still seems like a low priority when compared to all we could be doing instead (my faves: securing our borders, reforming the tax code). Sure, I'd love a private account, but the amount of political resources and personal energy Bush is dedicating to this debate is what one would expect in peacetime. Not when we're at war. Maybe he thinks he can do it all: Fight a war, fix social security, pass medical liability & tax code reform, solve the border problem, etc. But he's only got like 2 years before the media turns its attention to 2008, and then it's all Hilary all the time (go McCain! Or Mitt!).
moving on...
The SuperBowl was alright. The best commercial was the Ameriquest one with the cat and the pasta sauce. Scratch that, it was only the funniest. The BEST one was the Anheuser-Busch military appreciation spot which showed a group of soldiers walking through an airport and then being applauded by everyone they passed in the terminal. Good stuff. Makes me want to join the army. Or not.

1 Comments:
I have to post anonymously because i don't have one of these things yet. instead of posting to each individual entry, i'll just do one big post and wherever it lands, it lands. first off, congrats on getting one of these. without your weekly movie email, there has been no forum for me to get your opinions on the suckiness of the world.
i hadn't heard about condi raising the price on bin laden's head. aside from that, what do you think of her so far? if what i've been reading on drudge is true, it seems that some of the european countries are ready to start anew with relations now that she's in office. hopefully she'll start kicking ass and taking names.
while less dependence on oil is definitely a huge factor, i don't see it happening anytime soon. to lose our dependence, we'd have to tap into alaska for reserves. with the influx of reports on global warming and the climate recently, combined with the normal chatter from environmentalists, i just don't see it happening. i also think that the rush for oil in the middle east is motivated by america's need to establish ourselves as a force there, rather than an actual need for the reserves. we get the majority of our oil from south america, and while i definitely think that the invasion was motivated by oil, i'm not sure its necessarily dependence on the middle east for supply as much as its the need for america to have its own large reserve that it can tap whenever it wants. that way, we avoid having to destroy our own lands, and we can get control a large oil supply without having a country we don't like, such as iraq or iran, telling us how much its gonna cost. i dunno, just my opinion.
i know that you're a new englander now, but the patriots should have lost. i knew they wouldn't, but they should have. i have been a pats supporter in the past, due to the fact that i love boston, and you and lauren are there. and while i'm surprised the steelers made it as far as they did, i was pissed that they lost to ne. the pats have kicked ass in football the past four years, and boston won baseball this year. pittsburgh, on the other hand, really needed the win for morale and money. we have no baseball team, and hockey is gone, so football is the only hope. a win would have been great for the city. so, dare i say it, the patriots should have thrown the game against the steelers. give someone else a chance, you greedy bastards! needless to say, i was cheering for the eagles this year, even though i knew they wouldn't win.
time for me to get back to work. keep up with the posts.
-j
Post a Comment
<< Home